should shrink from doing justice lest it should lead to loss, the noble lord proceeded to cominent upon the consequences likely to result to us from the nature of our attack ing the naval resources of Denmark by that attack, we had, he contended, particularly by the spirit we had produced, contributed to promote and extend those resources. Denmark could easily repair the loss she sustained by the captures we had made. The ports and arsenals were still remaining, with a vast quantity of naval materiais, which naturally belonged to her; and any supply she wanted, she could obtain without difficulty. We were not, therefore, to suppose that we had, by the success of our unjust attack upon Denmark, rendered the naval resources of that state much less formidable than they were before. The profit derivable from our iniquity was, in fact, immaterial, while we had created a spirit, and valour, and animosity to fight against us, which must furnish powerful aid to the common enemy.-The noble lord concluded with expressing his cordial concurrence in the principle and object of the motion. of nations, the noble lord contended, that I there were only two legitimate causes of war, namely, the evident disposition of a state to engage in war, or the actual commencement of hostilities. But in plead-upon Copenhagen. So far from destroying for the Danish expedition, its projectors, aware that no one adequate reason could be assigned for their conduct, seemed to look for support to the accumulation of a number of small reasons. They could not certainly maintain that the treaty of Tilsit was the cause of their attack upon Copenhagen, for to that treaty Russia was a party, towards which government they professed an amicable disposition after that attack had terminated. It had been insinuated, that in urging this point he, and those who thought with him, were pleading for the enemy, while, in point of fact, they were pleading the cause of their country, and of their king, whose name had been used to allege that which the enemy had it in his power to contradict, and to contradict with truth. For, as it was now manifest, there were no secret articles or secret arrangements at Tilsit, as had been originally stated, to justify the Danish expedition, credulity itself could no longer attend to any such statement, Lord Hawk.sbury said, he would not, at after the conversation which a noble friend that late hour, trespass long on their lordof his had mentioned to have taken place ships' time, but begged their attention, between him and the emperor of Russia; while he made a few observations, by way but if these much talked of secret articles of very shortly giving his negative to the had really existed, or been seriously sus- motion. The argument of the noble lord pected by ministers to have an existence, who spoke last appeared to him to be init would surely have been natural to look volved in great confusion; but he wished for some allusion to them in the Declara- to recal their lordships' attention to the tion of our ambassador at Petersburgh, true state of the question; and he thought, when accounting for the attack upon Den- when he did so, it would appear that it mark. He, however, did not state a word was neither more nor less than that, under about them; on the contrary, he alledged a pretence of restoring the Danish fleet, that one gentleman had for a long time the motion went directly to censure the reason to suspect the intention of the conduct of ministers, in the expedition to enemy to take possession of the Danish Copenhagen, of which their lordships had fleet, for the purpose of employing it already expressed their approbation. If against this country. The noble lord ex- we were obliged to act against a power as plained the object of the motion, which we had been against Denmark, could any appeared to be much misunderstood by such procedure be carried on with more some of the noble lords on the other side. caution than that whole transaction had It was by no means proposed that the been attended with? We made them Danish fleet should be restored under any every offer to conciliation that could be departicular circumstances; but merely, that vised before the army landed, and met not in order to facilitate a reconciliation, and only with a refusal to enter into a negowith a view to economy also, that it should tiation, but this refusal was repeated after be kept in such a state as to prevent any the army landed; and even just before obstructions to peace with Denmark, by the bombardment commenced, the same enabling us to restore it with the least pos- offers at negotiation were again made and sible expence and difficulty. After de-again rejected; and they not only refused precating the principle, that a state of war the very conciliatory terms that were offershould cancel moral obligations, or that we ed them, but even declared that they would make common cause with our enemy. If they had shewn any disposition to negotiate or to keep on amicable terms with this country, there might be some ground for the present motion; but having acted in the very manner they had done, they certainly had forfeited all claim to such treatment as was intended to be held out to them. In this view of the matter, he thought the motion was extremely illtimed, and that it ought to be resisted. A case had already been made out, which, in the face of parliament, and of the world, would justify ministers, who, in this, as in the instance of Portugal, had rescued the country from an impending and most imminent danger. PETITION RESPECTING THE COLD-BATHFIELDS PRISON.] Mr. Sheridan rose to present a Petition upon a subject which he should recommend to the serious attention of the house, and of his majesty's ministers. The subject was not new to that house, for in the year 1800 he had taken a considerable share, with a worthy and hon. baronet (sir F. Burdett) whom he did not then see in his place, in the inquiries. which had been made into the management of the Coldbath-fields Prison, and which brought the abuses in the government of that prison under the consideration of parliament. They had, on that occasion, established the case so clearly, that the distinguished person now no more, (Mr. Pitt,) who was then at the head of his majesty's government, was obliged to give way, and consent to a full investigation of the whole transaction. Accord Lord Sidmouth replied with consideraI ble animation. He felt gratified at the discussion which the resolution had called forth, although he must say that it had experienced, from the noble lords who op-ingly a commission was issued under his posed it, a good deal of misrepresentation. He contended, that the analogy attempted with respect to the Toulon fleet, and the capture of the Spanish ships, did not at all apply, to the case of Copenhagen. In the former instances, circumstances of hostility had taken place sufficient to justify a declaration, but the attack against Copenhagen had the two characteristics of surprize and spoliation committed on a neutral, independent, and friendly power. Madeira had also been alluded to, but it was out of all fair and legitimate comparison to make any such resemblance. The conduct of G. Britain, on that occasion, was that of a friendly power extending its protection to a weak but friendly nation in the hour of impending distress. In what fell from the noble secretary, there was nothing to convince his mind. His arguments alone went to say, that, because this country had commenced a career of injustice, therefore it ought to persevere in it. He felt the converse of the proposition, as due to the hitherto proud character of G. Britain, and with such an impression he alone came forward, unbiassed by any party hostility to his majesty's servants, to perform the duty he owed to himself and his country. The motion being loudly called for, the house divided, when there appeared Contents ... 31,... Proxies 20 - 51. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, February 18. majesty's sign manual, appointing commissioners, most of them members of that house, to prosecute the inquiry; and a report was made, which entered very much into the detail of the subject. But unquestionably the defect or error of that report was not, that it exaggerated the abuses complained of in the interior administration of the government of the prison. He found, however, that the means. recommended in the report, for the redress of the abuses complained of, had not been carried into effect, nay, had been abandoned, and he very much feared, that the abuses had increased in consequence. The allegations contained in the petition, he had not felt it necessary to enquire into, previous to his presenting it to the house, because he had received the Petition from such a respectable quarter, and upon such high authority, that he could not entertain any just doubts of the correctness of the statements it contained. The Petition was signed by Mr. Stevens, foreman, and by the other members of the grand jury of the county of Middlesex, as well as by Mr. Phillips, one of the sheriffs, a gentleman, who, infinitely to his credit, applied himself, with the most laudable zeal, to the execution of all the duties of his arduous office. He could assure the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, that this matter was not brought before parliament by him with any party views, nor had the petitioners any such object in their contemplation. On the contrary, it had been his practice, on every occasion when he had a petition to present, praying for a redress of grievances, to submit the subject | upon an investigation of the matter, must to the consideration of his majesty's ministers, whenever the redress could be effec tuaily administered by them, rather than bring the matter forward publicly in parliament. This course had been followed in the present instance. A communication had been made to his majesty's government by the foreman of the grand jury, in an interview which he had with one of his majesty's ministers. As no steps had since been taken in consequence of such communication, he had thought it his duty to present the petition to parliament. But, he should, for the present, content himself with moving, that the petition do lie on the table, leaving the whole credit of the business to his majesty's ministers, if they should think proper to take it up, though at the same time he was bound to state, that if, after a reasonable time, no step should appear to have been taken, he should think it his duty to bring forward the subject by a specific motion. come before the grand jury, who would of course come to the consideration of the charge, with less prejudice upon their minds. After he had recommended this mode of proceeding, and upon the grounds he had stated, the petitioners, whether from a just or an unjust distrust of the government, had thought proper to bring the matter publicly before parliament. Though the presentment, it appeared had been made at the Michaelmas Sessions, it was not till after the commencement of the present session of parliament that the matter had been communicated to government. An inquiry too had been made by the magistrates, which, though he could not say whether the result of that inquiry was right or wrong, seemed, from the silence of the parties, a satisfactory answer to the complaint, and therefore no farther steps had been taken till the present time, It had even been inferred, from their not having made the official communication recommended, that the gentlemen themselves, who preferred the complaint, were satisfied with the result of that inquiry. He was sure the right hon. gent. would concur with him, that it would have been much better to have left the business, in the first instance, to the executive government; but now that the Petition had been brought forward, he had no objection to its lying on the table. Mr. Sheridan observed, that the petitioners had not shewn any unfair distrust of government, remembering as they did that no efficient measures of redress had been adopted, founded on the report of 1800, and because there could be no efficient redress without the dismissal of Mr. Aris. As to an official communication, it was impossible for the petitioners to make it, because the grand jury had been dissolved previous to the communication. It was as private individuals that they appeared as petitioners before parliament, and not in any aggregate capacity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not mean to give any opposition to the bringing up this Petition, though after the statement of the right hon. gent. he felt called upon to make one or two observations. He agreed with the right hon. gent. that when questions of this description arose, the proper course to take was, to see at first how far the executive government might be disposed to interfere for the redress of the abuses complained of. An appeal to the government was, therefore, the most correct proceeding in the first instance, because it was competent to the executive to direct a thorough investigation into the matters complained of, and if the circumstances of the case should be such as to warrant the proceeding, to order a criminal prosecution against the offending parties. This was the view which he had of the subject, and the right hon. gent. himself seemed to acquiesce in it. The communication that had been made to government was conveyed in a private form, which could not regularly be acted The Chancellor of the Exchequer repeated, upon, and he had, in consequence, recom- that the only communication made to gomended that the matter should be officially vernment was of a private nature,' and, communicated to the executive; in which consequently, was not a sufficient ground case, he pledged himself, that so far as he for a public proceeding. As to the rewas individually concerned, no time should port of 1800, he had only to observe, that be lost, nor any means left untried to as- it had been laid on the table of the house, certain the justice of the complaint. He and might have been made the foundation had thought this a course far preferable to of parliamentary measures by any hon. bringing the subject at once before parli-member who might have thought such a ament; because whatever prosecutions the executive might find it necessary to order, course necessary.-The Petition was then brought up and read.-After which Mr. grievously injure those who were entitled to our forbearance, and as far as could be to our protection. The Advocate-General then rose and spoke nearly as follow: Sir, the house will naturally expect I should lay before them my opinion upon the subject of this bill, and the grounds of that opinion, upon this occasion. In doing this, it is necessary for me to look to the policy and the legality of the present measure, both of which have been charged against it by the hon. mem Sheridan moved, that it do lie on the table, at the same time stating, that many more facts had since came to the knowledge of the petitioners, which however, he should on that occasion abstain from detailing to the house. A short conversation then took place, as to the propriety of allowing the petition to lie on the table, with a description of the petitioners that was not borne out by the fact. Mr. Sumner first took the exception, on this ground, as even the right hon. gent. himself had admitted, that the grand jury had been dis-ber who has just now set down. In taking solved previous to the inquiry, and certainly, before the presenting of the petition. Without any wish to oppose the petition, he thought the house could not entertain it, with such an unfounded designation of the parties who presented it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer recommended to the right hon. gent. on this ground, to withdraw the petition for the present, in order to have one prepared to present to-morrow, with the proper designation of the parties, in which case he should himself be ready to second the motion, that the petition should lie on the table. After a few words from Mr. She-state of blockade, and to prohibit all ridan, who thought that the house ought not to be too critical as to the wording of petitions, the petition was allowed to be withdrawn, in order that it might be prepared to be presented to-morrow in a more correct form. [ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL.] On the order of the day being moved for the 2d reading of the Orders in Council bill, Mr. Eden said, that he could not allow this bill to go through another stage without declaring his sentiments upon it. He thought that our retaliation upon our enemies ought to be conducted in such a manner as not to injure unoffending neutrals. He was of opinion that the note delivered to the American negociators on the 31st of Dec. 1806, was still binding on the government of this country, as there was no appearance that America had submitted to the controul which the French government had attempted to impose on the commerce of neutrals with Britain. On the contrary, there was ample evidence that America had remonstrated against the French decree, and had obtained an exemption from its operation according to the explanation given by the French minister of marine, Decrés. To impose a tax upon neutrals was illegal by the law of nations, and by the statute law also. The measure would do no injury to France, but it would a comprehensive view of this matter, I am afraid it will be necessary to trace back some of the circumstances which led generally to its adoption, because we must not consider a measure like this detached from the circumstances which preceded or accompanied it. Its policy and legality can only be fairly appreciated by such a consideration of the circumstances out of which it arose. It is evident then, that the Decree of the French government, of the 21st of Nov. 1806, is the foundation of the present proceeding. That decree purported to declare the British isles in a commerce whatever, even with neutral nations, in the manufactures of this country. The effect of that decree was to exclude us from all foreign powers whatever; and to prevent them not only from carrying on their accustomed trade with this country, but even to exclude the possibility of one neutral nation trading with safety to another. An American vessel trading from one neutral port to another, was subject to be seized by that Decree of the French government.-Sir, it has been said, that we have misconstrued this Decree, and that it does not in effect blockade this country. In regard to its prohibiting the carriage of our produce or manufactures, there can be no doubt; but it has been alleged that there could have been some other mode of avoiding its consequences. In my opinion, I do not see any great difference whether the threatened blockade was included in it or not; for if foreign ships had only been allowed to come to this country with their foreign produce, and not enabled to take away our goods in return, that surely amounted very nearly to a similar blockading declaration. I cannot but be surprised that any person can read this French Decree, and doubt its construction. The very preanble of it recites what has been done by this country; but it must be admitted that So. | followed the measure of the last government, dated the 7th of Jan.? Did neutral nations interpose? Did the three nations whom the French Decrees materially affected interpose, in order to get them removed? Did Denmark, Portugal, or America interpose? I have not understood that any of these powers did endeavour to do On the contrary, I think we have a pretty strong Note now laid before the house, which was presented by the Danish government, complaining of the injustice of the Decree issued by G. Britain, but no inclination was evinced to revoke the previous Decree of France, nor intimating any sense of the forbearance of this country. That Note I think seems to be sounding pretty much of an Armed Neutrality, the favourite measure which Denmark has all along been aiming at; a measure on a principle which, once adopted and carried into effect, so as to increase the maritime power of the nations on the continent, must put an end to the maritime power of G. Britain. Such has all along been the disposition of Denmark. As to Portugal, such was the unfortunate situation of that country, that with every disposition to do justice to her allies, it could not be supposed that she could venture to interfere to procure a revocation of the French Decree, when she was obviously under the necessity of endeavouring to purchase her own neutrality. So far from her being able to do so, it was well known that the port of Lisbon was made the entrepôt for violating the Decree we issued upon the 7th of Jan. and breaking through the prohibition of trading from one port to another. The country from which we had reason to expect the effectual interposition, was the United States of America. Upon a former occasion that country attempted what it was called upon to do, at least so far as respected its own honour. It may be in the recollection of the house, that there was a Decree somewhat similar to the present one issued by the French government in the beginning of Jan. 1798, when that decree was noticed in the President's speech, as most injurious to America, and stated to be a measure that could not be suffered to exist, without violating. the independence of their country. That speech strongly showed what were then the feelings and the intentions of the United States upon this subject. It showed that it was then deemed to be an unjust attack against neutral rights, and that they owned that nothing but a thorough resist these imputations are groundless and false. It states that this country had blockaded various ports against neutrals, and argues the necessity of retaliation, and of declaring the British isles in a state of blockade. The fact, however, is falsely assumed, that this country ever declared any port in a state of blockade, without previously investing that port. I shall do the late government of this country the justice to say that when they blockaded any of the enemy's ports, they anxiously inquired whether those ports had been in the first place regularly invested. The French government, in their decree, avowed their intention of retaliation, without previously investing our ports, and therefore all the consequences of that blockade must be presumed to follow that declaration. It goes on through six articles, and then states, that any vessel coming from the British ports with British goods, shall not be admitted into any port of that country, meaning France itself. Now there does seem something of an inconsistency between this article, and the first one in that Decree; the one, in a certain degree, doing away the effect of the other. It might, indeed, be doubted whether this was not done on purpose that no vessel should be admitted direct from our ports to those of France, till they touched at some intermediate one. It surely, at least, would bear such a construction: but still the previous part of it justified us in a contrary conclusion. That Decree of the French government ' avowed itself to mean a retaliation for an imaginary offence; and what, then, became the duty of this country, and other countries, in consequence of this outrageous measure? It surely became their duty to render such a mode of unaccustomed warfare to be retaliated and retorted upon the enemy. It was our duty to do this with as much forbearance as possible against other countries. Although it be a just principle in the law of nations that other countries must naturally suffer, in a certain degree, by the measures adopted, by belligerent powers; yet it is surely the duty of each to render that suffering as little injurious as possible. I certainly must justify the forbearance of the former ministry; but in doing so, I think it cannot be argued that if their measure was found insufficient for the purposes intended, others more vigorous should not be adopted, in order to remove those inconveniences this country was likely to undergo in consequence of French measures. What, then |